Paper Summary:

This paper discusses the different attitudes taken by Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X regarding the state itself and the laws it creates. It discusses how Socrates does not question the rightfulness of the system because he had chosen to abide by those laws when deciding to live in Athens. In comparison, the paper then looks at how Martin Luther King Jr. does consider the laws of the sytem to be a source of injustice, but he promotes a peaceful and non direct disobedience. The paper also examines how the most radical position is that of Malcolm X who rejects the laws as being the expression of white supremacy, infringing the emancipation of the black community, and therefore advocates a radical and even violent action against the system.

From the Paper:

"Socrates' views on the obedience to the law were shaped largely by the context his trial and his sentence to death had created. His main idea is that obedience must be exercised in relation to the one entity that can differentiate between right and wrong, and not to the majority which could in any instance decide his future. In this sense, he argues in his dialogue with Crito that "we should not think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself." This argument came as he tried to counter Crito's desire to help him escape the prison the Athenian state had placed him in awaiting his death. "

Sample of Sources Used:

• Malcolm X. The Ballot or the Bullet. 1964.
• Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. 1963.
• Plato. Plato Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002

Visitors who viewed this Comparison Essay also liked these:

• Essay # 46017 : "Socrates, Obedience and the Law"
• Argumentative Essay # 91230 : "Civil Obedience in the "Crito"
• Analytical Essay # 138306 : "Duty to Obey the Law"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: